Posts Tagged ‘grievance’

The Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a white female detective with the Philadelphia Police Department plausibly alleged that the city subjected her to a hostile work environment based upon the cumulative effect of alleged harassing conduct that included, among other things, a lieutenant calling her a “spankasauras” and “gabbygail.”

Alone, such isolated or sporadic incidents would not support a claim of hostile work environment harassment, but the court found that such events viewed in conjunction could be deemed to create a humiliating and hostile work environment. In the matter of Salvato v. Smith, the plaintiff alleged that in addition to being called names, she was treated differently than her male and black female coworkers in that the plaintiff was constantly questioned about her whereabouts, denied training opportunities, was not allowed to take personal calls from her child’s school, had her log-in times scrutinized, was denied requests for a steady shift, had her sick-leave scrutinized, received a warning letter in her personnel file, and was denied a transfer. Moreover, much of the activity occurred after the plaintiff filed a grievance with the Fraternal Order of Police and a complaint with the EEO unit for discrimination.

Although it remains to be seen how this case will play out, this case serves as a reminder to employers to be mindful of how supervisors treat employees after a grievance is filed.

This article is authored by attorney Kimberly J. Overbaugh and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

The passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) provision requiring employers to provide mothers a reasonable break time and private place to express breast milk has created fodder for a few lawsuits, one of which I blogged about not too long ago. In another recent case (Miller v. Rosche Surety & Cas. Co.), the 11th Circuit, a federal court, held that a female employee who was fired after she sent a company executive an email asking where she could express breast milk, while temporarily working at a different office, did not have a viable retaliation claim under the FLSA because no reasonable jury could interpret her email as a protected complaint. Allow me to explain:

The FLSA protects employees who engage in protected activity from retaliation by their employers. A clear example of a protected activity would be a written complaint to an employer informing the employer that the employee believes his/her rights under the FLSA are being infringed upon and calling for protection of those rights, but rarely are complaints to employers so straightforward. Therefore, to determine whether a complaint constituted a protected activity, the law asks whether a reasonable jury could interpret the complaint as protected activity. And, according to a Supreme Court ruling in 2011 (Kasten v. Stain-Gobain Performance Plastics Co.) the highest court of our nation has even said that an oral complaint may trigger the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. However, even an oral complaint has to have some degree of formality in order to give the employer fair notice that an employee is lodging a grievance. Indeed, a complaint needs to be clear and detailed enough to put a reasonable employer on notice, considering the context and content, that an employee is asserting rights provided by the FLSA and calling for protection of those rights.

In the Miller case, a female employee who worked for a Florida bail bond company simply sent an email to a company executive asking about where she could use her breast pump while working somewhere other than her usual place of work. The 11th Circuit held that this inquiry could not reasonably be construed as an FLSA complaint because the email did not put the employer on notice that the employee was lodging a grievance. The 11th Circuit also held that the employee could not raise a triable issue regarding whether the employer violated the FLSA provision that requires employers to provide employees with a private place to express milk because the employee testified that she was given necessary breaks for this purpose and had access to a private place to do so while at her regular office.

Interestingly, the employee cited to a Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) case to support her view than an employee’s “prospective request” that an employer comply with the FLSA is “protected activity” under the act. However, the 11th Circuit distinguished the FMLA case in which it ruled that an employee’s pre-eligibility request for post-eligibility maternity leave was protected under the FMLA on the basis that the FMLA contains a provision making it unlawful for employers to “interfere with, restrain, or deny” an employee’s exercise, or attempt to exercise, any right provided by the FMLA while the FLSA lacks a comparable provision.

Finally, the employee unsuccessfully argued that because the employer monitored her email communications at work, an email that she sent to a friend under the subject line “Federal Law” that referenced the FLSA provision regarding expressing breast milk was akin to an FLSA complaint. The Court rejected this argument because the employee never showed the email to the employer and never told anyone at her company that she believed the company was violating the provision. Therefore, the email to the employee’s friend did not effectively notify the company of her grievance.

Lesson for Employers: Although this case ended well for the employer, employers should take issues surrounding expressing breast milk at work seriously. In a case such as the one discussed above, the employer, knowing that the employee was pumping at work, might have chosen to proactively inform the employee where she could pump while working at the different location, which effort would have cast the employer in the best light possible. For large employers, paying attention to the individual needs of each employee might not be possible, but larger employers might be able to designate lactation areas that eliminate the need for employees to inquire about suitable places to pump while visiting other offices or have written express breast milk policies that address how employees should handle pumping away from their regular place of work. The attorneys at Harmon & Davies are here to assist employers with navigating issues surrounding expressing breast milk at work.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.